63 replies to this topic

[Joe Mallad]

PGI needs to take the quirk system a bit farther and I hope they do.

What I mean is, mech like the Centurion that have the built in shield (while no weapon is there) still should have "like the Hunchback", a quirk that "that" shield arm has a % more armor. That shield would be an added armor bonus, would it not?

If I know that shield arm had an extra % armor bonus because of the shield, watch how fast I'd adapt to try and make sure I twist that arm around to take the brunt of incoming fire.

The same with JJs. Give a slight % bonus to mechs that are "intended" to use them.

For example, the Spider whatever model has "this many" JJs. Some people keep them, some drop them for more tonnage.
Well...give me a quirk that gives me a % to thrust speed and fuel consumption so I can stay in the air a bit longer "if" I go with the full amount of JJs that were intended for that mech.

Example... I have "any" mech that is intended to utilize 6 JJs. But the perk for JJs states I get a % to thrust speed and fuel consumption (only if I utilize 6 JJs). removing any or all and no bonus.

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 17 October 2014 - 05:42 AM.

[Mawai]

Triordinant, on 16 October 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:

The IS buffs (quirks) and Clan nerfs can both be traced back to the official decision to make IS vs Clan matches 12 vs 12 instead of 10 vs 12 or some other number, as I posted on another thread.

... and that decision was taken so that they would not have to split the general queues. At the moment if you own a mech you can drop in it.

If they balanced IS vs clan as 12 v 10 and then split them the following problems arise.

1) You can't use weight class matching since there are not even numbers for each weight class on each side? What constitutes a "balanced" match. Do you drop a clan light and an assault? A medium and a heavy? Much more difficult to balance.

2) If clan and IS drop separately you run into queue time issues. If the clan and IS sides are not almost exactly equal then the side with more will start waiting longer and longer and longer. There is no way to alleviate a queue imbalance if you force IS vs clan matches due to a 12 v 10 balance requirement. (The solution is probably to launch exclusive clan v clan or IS vs IS matches to take pressure off the queue)

3) Groups would be forced to drop as ALL clan or ALL IS. Mixed groups dropping for fun with different combinations would not be possible.

4) The solo queue could get into the queue starvation issues if clan and IS are not almost perfectly in balanced in terms of 10:12 in the input queue.

Creating balanced matches is much easier if they work to balance clan vs IS in 12 v 12 and allow mixed drops in solo and group queues. There is also the economic issue of a 10 v 12 being about 10% less efficient in processing player game request since the total players in a match is 22 and not 24.

[Duke Nedo]

totgeboren, on 17 October 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

I dunno, for that to be true a substantial segment of your opposition would need to be running around in lore-appropriate mechs, since these are the ones getting buffed.
My personal hunch is that most people converge on fairly similar loadouts as it is because of what works and what does not work in a given mech (AC10 in the arm of CN9-A tend to disappear, and people put more weight on SRMs instead for example). Only if these quirks put lore-mechs at a higher power level than the current 'best' loadout will your own non-quirked mech become worse.
If these new quirks only raise the lore loadout to the same level (or just below) of the current 'best' loadout, your non-quirked mech will not face stiffer opposition than before, only more varied opposition (as the quirked loadouts will be as viable as the non-quirked one).

Aye, think we are talking about the same thing now.. I am guessing that one variant of each chassi will get quirks that are compatible with the "best" build for that mech, or close to it, but we'll all find out sooner rather than later now...

[totgeboren]

Duke Nedo, on 17 October 2014 - 05:58 AM, said:

Aye, think we are talking about the same thing now.. I am guessing that one variant of each chassi will get quirks that are compatible with the "best" build for that mech, or close to it, but we'll all find out sooner rather than later now...

Oh yeah, hadn't thought about that, that if the best loadout right now actually is the lore loadout then that particular mech would indeed receive a straight up buff. Though I can't think of any.

[Triordinant]

Mawai, on 17 October 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

... and that decision was taken so that they would not have to split the general queues. At the moment if you own a mech you can drop in it.

If they balanced IS vs clan as 12 v 10 and then split them the following problems arise.

1) You can't use weight class matching since there are not even numbers for each weight class on each side? What constitutes a "balanced" match. Do you drop a clan light and an assault? A medium and a heavy? Much more difficult to balance.

2) If clan and IS drop separately you run into queue time issues. If the clan and IS sides are not almost exactly equal then the side with more will start waiting longer and longer and longer. There is no way to alleviate a queue imbalance if you force IS vs clan matches due to a 12 v 10 balance requirement. (The solution is probably to launch exclusive clan v clan or IS vs IS matches to take pressure off the queue)

3) Groups would be forced to drop as ALL clan or ALL IS. Mixed groups dropping for fun with different combinations would not be possible.

4) The solo queue could get into the queue starvation issues if clan and IS are not almost perfectly in balanced in terms of 10:12 in the input queue.

Creating balanced matches is much easier if they work to balance clan vs IS in 12 v 12 and allow mixed drops in solo and group queues. There is also the economic issue of a 10 v 12 being about 10% less efficient in processing player game request since the total players in a match is 22 and not 24.

Those are all good reasons, but the bottom line is if only IS diehards play IS in CW and everyone else plays Clans, then CW is dead on arrival. If it's 12 vs 12, an all-IS team still has to have an even chance of defeating an all-Clan team, which means they have to nerf Clans and buff IS -that's the tradeoff for 12 vs 12. The non-CW queues are fine for now.

[Alek Ituin]

TexAss, on 17 October 2014 - 04:31 AM, said:

No it doesn't. Besides it gives you 3 times more mechs to choose from and not just the 1 or 2 variants which were considered worth taking.

It's the first step towards real role warfare. What we waited for TWO frikkin years. And people still complain.

Sarcasm and satire.

You don't get them.

[C E Dwyer]

if the G's quirks only work with the Ac20 (the build its designed for) and don't have any benefit for custom non stardard jobs, then I will applaude PGI, as the mech was designed to run that build and any other should be sub optimal.

seems PGi have decided to go with some sensible engineering at last ?

[Macksheen]

You can totally bring a knife to the gun fight. The knife you love is still the same old knife, but the guns are now fully automatic.

[Greziz]

Every one saying your getting nerfed cause your not using the buffs, that is flawed logic.

For instance assume the firestarter gets a 25 percent range boost to flamers and machineguns and a 20 percent boost to dmg for flamers.

Guess what I PROMISE YOU NOT A SINGLE SOUL IS GUNNA USE THOSE FLAMERS!!!!!!!!!!! Why? Because it is still a noob trap weapon.

I expect that my catapult k2 isn't going to receive buffs to gauss rifles or uac5's and is probably gunna get some goofy ppc buff guess what Still gunna use my uac5's and Med lazers or my gauss and med lazers on it.

[Impyrium]

Yoseful Mallad, on 17 October 2014 - 05:38 AM, said:

PGI needs to take the quirk system a bit farther and I hope they do.

What I mean is, mech like the Centurion that have the built in shield (while no weapon is there) still should have "like the Hunchback", a quirk that "that" shield arm has a % more armor. That shield would be an added armor bonus, would it not?

If I know that shield arm had an extra % armor bonus because of the shield, watch how fast I'd adapt to try and make sure I twist that arm around to take the brunt of incoming fire.

The same with JJs. Give a slight % bonus to mechs that are "intended" to use them.

For example, the Spider whatever model has "this many" JJs. Some people keep them, some drop them for more tonnage.
Well...give me a quirk that gives me a % to thrust speed and fuel consumption so I can stay in the air a bit longer "if" I go with the full amount of JJs that were intended for that mech.

Example... I have "any" mech that is intended to utilize 6 JJs. But the perk for JJs states I get a % to thrust speed and fuel consumption (only if I utilize 6 JJs). removing any or all and no bonus.

I'm hoping that's pretty much what they're doing. The Centurion, surely- that shield is iconic, so there's no doubt it's going to get a massive boost.

[KraftySOT]

Duke Nedo, on 17 October 2014 - 05:16 AM, said:

With relative I mean relative to the average of all other mechs, i.e. some kind of baseline. It doesn't necessarily make that non-quirked build a bad build or even a worse build than the quirked one, but it will be worse than before the other mechs got bonuses (because it will now face boosted "opponents" if you choose to picture it that way). The competition/alternative got better but you are still the same.

Anyways, for chassi with many variants I am sure most people will find their variant with suitable quirks. It may be worse for someone who really enjoys that LBX on his Flame or whatever...

If youre in 3rd place, and another racer is in 10th place, and he gets moved up arbitrarily to 5th place.

Youre still in 3rd place.

You guys saying "Quirks are a malus to some mechs" are morons.

[Alek Ituin]

AUSwarrior24, on 17 October 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

I'm hoping that's pretty much what they're doing. The Centurion, surely- that shield is iconic, so there's no doubt it's going to get a massive boost.

It is an arm with a big arse plate of metal on it.

Logically it should be tougher than an arm without a big arse plate of metal on it.


Ergo, I agree with you.

[Duke Nedo]

totgeboren, on 17 October 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

Oh yeah, hadn't thought about that, that if the best loadout right now actually is the lore loadout then that particular mech would indeed receive a straight up buff. Though I can't think of any.

A few that could possibly be, only looking at some of the viable heavy/assaults:
AC5/UAC5 bonus for Banshees, Jaegers, Cataphracts
AC20: Atlasses
SRMs: Atlases, Battlemasters
PPCs: Awesomes, Battlemasters
LLs: Awesomes, Stalkers
LRMs: Stalkers, Battlemasters, Awesomes

So I am guessing that some of these will get quirks that fits well with what one would like to run on them.

KraftySOT, on 17 October 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

If youre in 3rd place, and another racer is in 10th place, and he gets moved up arbitrarily to 5th place.

Youre still in 3rd place.

You guys saying "Quirks are a malus to some mechs" are morons.

But if nr 4 and 5 gets moved up arbitrarily to 2nd and 3rd place you will get moved down to 5th. We can do this all night.

[Tezcatli]

If you're already running a build that isn't performing according to the top metas. You won't lose anything. You won't gain as much perhaps. But unlike size hard points, you can still build your mech how you want, and play it the way you want. People already do this. So it won't hurt anyone.

At least this way more variants will be viable in specialized builds.

[Glythe]

Rouken, on 17 October 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

You're not being forced, stop being dramatic. All the other builds are still possible and just as effective as always, maybe they even got some buffs too.

You speak about this game as though it wasn't against other players.

[Glythe]

Mawai, on 17 October 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

If they balanced IS vs clan as 12 v 10 and then split them the following problems arise.

1) You can't use weight class matching since there are not even numbers for each weight class on each side? What constitutes a "balanced" match. Do you drop a clan light and an assault? A medium and a heavy? Much more difficult to balance.

2) If clan and IS drop separately you run into queue time issues. If the clan and IS sides are not almost exactly equal then the side with more will start waiting longer and longer and longer. There is no way to alleviate a queue imbalance if you force IS vs clan matches due to a 12 v 10 balance requirement. (The solution is probably to launch exclusive clan v clan or IS vs IS matches to take pressure off the queue)

3) Groups would be forced to drop as ALL clan or ALL IS. Mixed groups dropping for fun with different combinations would not be possible.

4) The solo queue could get into the queue starvation issues if clan and IS are not almost perfectly in balanced in terms of 10:12 in the input queue.

Creating balanced matches is much easier if they work to balance clan vs IS in 12 v 12 and allow mixed drops in solo and group queues. There is also the economic issue of a 10 v 12 being about 10% less efficient in processing player game request since the total players in a match is 22 and not 24.

1. If you balance the game around 10 vs 12 then IS mechs get a weight advantage. For the sake of simplicity let's say the IS team gets +200 tons.

2. Nothing stops IS vs IS or clan vs clan matches when the opposite opponent can't be fielded in numbers to make a full team. As for the wait time issue.... if we ditch Elo and go with BV then there really isn't a time issue.

3. Your team is either all IS or you are weighted as clan even if you aren't. This simplifies the problem and penalizes Clan teams that want to make the most of really good IS (light) mechs.

4. Take 10 mechs vs 12 mechs and make sure the IS team has a hefty weight advantage as close to 200 tons as possible (or whatever number balances it out).


*5. Even the score issue is a stupid point because 10 vs 12 means you have lopsided build value. Anyone who has played a TT game knows the solution is already built in. If you have two 400 pt armies you could in theory have 4x 100 point figures. Or you could have lots of them in incremental small values. At the end of the game (usually there are time limits or turn limits) whichever team has scored more points in casualties wins. Just do the same thing here except make the Clan team have to win by 201 tons if the game ends in a "draw" scenario.

Edited by Glythe, 17 October 2014 - 11:53 PM.

[SweetJackal]

Triordinant, on 17 October 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:

Those are all good reasons, but the bottom line is if only IS diehards play IS in CW and everyone else plays Clans, then CW is dead on arrival. If it's 12 vs 12, an all-IS team still has to have an even chance of defeating an all-Clan team, which means they have to nerf Clans and buff IS -that's the tradeoff for 12 vs 12. The non-CW queues are fine for now.

The other problem exists with player mentality and psychology. In the event of a faction being designed to be stronger by the individual unit and balanced against numerical superiority for the other side then you are creating a situation where there is the perception of large leaps of power being locked behind progression or paywalls. Either that or you are allowing players to pick if they are Clan or IS pilots from the start in which case the vast majority of players will jump ship for Clan Tech leading to player starvation on the IS side, set to be even worse as it will be butting heads against themselves with the Great Houses.

This is due to the simple matter that players, speaking in broad sweeping strokes, will gravitate toward the options with the most visible and obvious impact or power. You do not need to look far to see many examples of this existing in different games from the starvation of dedicated healers and tanks in MMOs to the team bickering that exists in DOTA Styled games over Carries, Assassins and Supports. Team players often break out of this defined model but the vast majority of solo players strictly follow these lines.

It also sits with the problem that making Clan Tech a flat out upgrade over the IS will work towards the Arms Race that BT ran on, invalidating older mechs and weapons in an ever increasing arms race. This was fine for BT as it was one player controlling a side (which allows the BV system to function,) not a unit and the business model supports that type of gaming but such an environment is extremely toxic to the overall health of a free to play business model. There is a massive difference between what will work and thrive and what will cause harm in a Paid Package Tabletop Game you play your play with friends (which allows for variable rules) or in a tournament setting and a Free To Play Game that supports play with complete strangers (which requires a strict and rigid rule structure.)

[Bishop Steiner]

Past, on 16 October 2014 - 05:50 PM, said:

Seriously these weapon specific bonuses are way to big to ignore looking at the Hunchback 4G 25% bonus to cool down, Range & Velocity on the AC20 if you ignore that you are missing out greatly and there isn't even a general ballistic weapon buff for any other ballistic weapons that i thought used to be mentioned in the command chair post but no longer appears to be there.

But on top of taking away the choice of how to build our mech now they also time this right after a lot of people would have gone on weapon module buying sprees. So you spent a ton of Cbills on the modules for your mechs to match its weapons and now guess what if you don't use the weapons you are told to you miss out on these large bonuses. So great you have taken away our ability to customize and at the same time wasted millions of Cbills on modules that don't match what you are forcing us to equip.

On top of that rebuilds usually require engine size changes which is another massive Cbill sink I'm sure your aware of all this though and like the idea of MC becoming more necessary to play but i had hoped silly tactics like this had gone with IGP apparently not.

Been playing since closed beta and have closely followed development and in my personal opinion trying to force load outs and killing customization is a massive misstep and the worst change that has ever been made.

HBK-4G engineered around ac20. PGI makes it work better as engineered. Still works fine without ac20. People QQ because their pet build not buffed.

[XtremWarrior]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 October 2014 - 04:24 AM, said:

HBK-4G engineered around ac20. PGI makes it work better as engineered. Still works fine without ac20. People QQ because their pet build not buffed.

Exactly this. If you like a different loadout on your Hunchy, you won't get nerfed or anything, just no buffed.

Also, as Russ uses the Hunchy as an exemple, everybody seem to think that the new quircks are all gonna be that selective:
AC20 buff, IS-SL buff, Clan ERLL, etc...
HBK-4G is specifically designed for AC20 because that huge weapon is supposed to be hardly mountable on anything not Assault-sized, its bonuses have to reflect that. It's part of the lore and encourage people to load it as it is designed to be. That's why it has this one-weapon-only quircks. Most of Mechs will get weapon type bonuses, like the "energy weapons" quircks the HBK will also receive.
And again you will not be hindered by using a different AC for the 4G, you just don't get those specific bonuses.

[Alek Ituin]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 October 2014 - 04:24 AM, said:

HBK-4G engineered around ac20. PGI makes it work better as engineered. Still works fine without ac20. People QQ because their pet build not buffed.

Forums being the forums.

Did you honestly expect anything different?